Starting this thread off with an interview of the Philippine's President Duterte last May. It's on RT, which of course is as bias as CNN, but his responses to the questions regarding his views on U.S. policy are consistent with other interviews and comments he has made.

He isn't the only foreign leader growing tired of excessive U.S. meddling in their internal affairs. While I don't agree with many of Dutarte's decisions, it is past time for us to start listening as much as we preach. Failure to do so will result in decreased influence over time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYZsT3CvXdo

Bill Moore

09-04-2017, 10:08 PM

Despite some folks disagreeing with the negative impact President Trump has had on the world's perception of the U.S., perception is reality.

Donald Trump’s presidency has had a major impact on how the world sees the United States. Trump and many of his key policies are broadly unpopular around the globe, and ratings for the U.S. have declined steeply in many nations. According to a new Pew Research Center survey spanning 37 nations, a median of just 22% has confidence in Trump to do the right thing when it comes to international affairs. This stands in contrast to the final years of Barack Obama’s presidency, when a median of 64% expressed confidence in Trump’s predecessor to direct America’s role in the world.

Confidence in the U.S. President to make the right decisions in regards to world affairs decreased over 50% in the following countries of note: Japan, Australia, UK, South Korea, Germany, France, Spain, and Canada. The only countries that have an improved view of the U.S. are Russia and Israel.

In my view the White House issue is tied more to its clumsy communications than real policy decisions. Arguably, President Obama made several terrible foreign policy decisions, but he was an exponentially better communicator.

The U.S. and China engender roughly the same level of goodwill. China is particularly well-liked in Latin America and the Middle East, while the U.S. fares better in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.

However, America’s weakening image in many nations has taken a toll on the country’s once-solid lead over China. And China’s own favorability has strengthened in recent years in Canada, Australia, Lebanon and Turkey.

A quarter-century after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is viewed far less favorably than either the U.S. or China in most of the world, though America’s recent steep decline in image has improved Russia’s standing compared with that of the U.S.

davidbfpo

09-05-2017, 05:54 PM

Bill,

There have been periods in recent history where - mainly the liberal democracies - have been at a minimum puzzled and many have strongly opposed what the USA has pursued. Vietnam comes to mind, then the arrival of President Reagan, with what appeared to be dangerous policies, Star Wars and cruise missiles came to the fore, in Europe.

With the declared end of the 'Cold War' there was a shared perception it was a new world and a diminishing public interest in national security.

9/11 meant the USA had global sympathy, which has slowly ebbed as the 'Long War' has lengthened and the public has got nervous, even fearful of what may come. I doubt there is much public support within the "willing coalition" to commit blood and gold to Afghanistan.

There has always been a concern, maybe a fear, that the USA would simply 'put America first' and not be too worried about the national interests of allies, friends and others. President Trump has accentuated that.

One consequence, alongside many other factors, can be seen in the UK where a politician once regarded as on the fringe is now the Labour Party's leader and who historically has not been friendly towards the USA.

I would ask two questions in response: Does the USA listen to those who are allies and friends? Can they really have an impact today?

davidbfpo

09-06-2017, 08:48 PM

Via Twitter and from the World Economic Forum:
The idea of the United States as a “shining city upon a hill” is most closely associated with President Ronald Reagan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm3jEfxRRc4) but has been used by politicians since the country’s earliest days.
The founding founders wanted America to be a beacon of freedom and democracy that would light the way for the rest of the world.

But it seems the brightness of that light has faded of late, with a new survey showing a significant and sudden drop in the number of people around the world who see the United States as having a positive influence.
The US ‘approval’ rating has dropped by 24 percentage points since last year's survey.

We can certainly view the world from two different views that often an ocean apart it seems.

There have been periods in recent history where - mainly the liberal democracies - have been at a minimum puzzled and many have strongly opposed what the USA has pursued. Vietnam comes to mind, then the arrival of President Reagan, with what appeared to be dangerous policies, Star Wars and cruise missiles came to the fore, in Europe.

I don't think liberal democracies were at all opposed to our intervention in Vietnam initially. In fact, it was the French who prodded us to get involved. As the war dragged on, and more importantly it was televised and propaganda-sized popular support ebbed. Nonetheless, liberal democracy was threatened by communism, and for a number of reasons that were both right and wrong in hindsight, the U.S. decided to make a stand in Vietnam.

With the declared end of the 'Cold War' there was a shared perception it was a new world and a diminishing public interest in national security.

True, but also true after WWI, and for a short period after WWII. Understandably, everyone wants a peace dividend.

9/11 meant the USA had global sympathy, which has slowly ebbed as the 'Long War' has lengthened and the public has got nervous, even fearful of what may come. I doubt there is much public support within the "willing coalition" to commit blood and gold to Afghanistan.

I think you're right, sympathy has a shelf life, and ours is expiring. Powell's intent of short and decisive wars was a worthwhile aim, even if unrealistic in practice. The character, political purpose, and world evolves too much when we wage long wars, and this change generally undermines both domestic and international support for these wars. However, unlike Vietnam, continued atrocities conducted by terrorists sustains enough support for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to continue in much of the liberal world.

There has always been a concern, maybe a fear, that the USA would simply 'put America first' and not be too worried about the national interests of allies, friends and others. President Trump has accentuated that.

The reality is all countries look after their national interests first, but few other countries have the impact on global security that U.S. security decisions will make. Overall, I think the U.S. have been good, not perfect, stewards of the international order since the end of WWII.

One consequence, alongside many other factors, can be seen in the UK where a politician once regarded as on the fringe is now the Labour Party's leader and who historically has not been friendly towards the USA.

Slamming the U.S. is currently popular, largely due to President Trump's admittedly problematic communication style. However, if Europe could move past its excessive political correctness and evaluate the Clinton compared to Trump, I think they will find Trump is the better deal. Clinton's support for intervention is at least partly responsible for the refugee crisis Europe is wrestling with now. President Trump says dumb things in rude ways, but on the other hand he has surrounded himself with a competent national security team.

I would ask two questions in response: Does the USA listen to those who are allies and friends? Can they really have an impact today?

Yes, our leaders listen. Often those discussions are not held in public, and deals are made, despite public political rhetoric saying something different. Allies and friends can and do make an impact. Keep in mind, the U.S.A. is much less likely to bury its head in the sand compared to other liberal democracies when there is a security challenge on the world stage. It often seems many of our allies and friends believe if we simply ignore a problem it will go away. Hitler benefited from that liberal mindset.

AdamG

02-04-2018, 03:43 PM

Given all the tension U.S. President Donald Trump has fomented with Mexico over the border wall and immigration, it was surprising to hear the country’s foreign minister say ties are better than they’ve been for a long time.

“That’s a fact of life,” Luis Videgaray said at a news conference Friday in Mexico City with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, after he said the relationship “is closer than it was with previous administrations.” He gave credit to Tillerson, standing just to his left: “I want to highlight the leadership of Secretary Tillerson has been instrumental to achieving this to bringing the countries closer.”

Mandatory glass-half-empty analysis.

Videgaray, who has regularly tried to smooth over differences between the U.S. and Mexico, may have simply been excelling in his role as his nation’s top diplomat. His sentiment seemed to defy the common view that relations between the neighbors -- still embroiled in talks over how to revamp their free trade agreement -- haven’t been this bad for years. Trump has repeatedly portrayed undocumented migrants, most of whom are from Mexico and Central America, as an existential threat to U.S. security and continues to insist that Mexico will pay for a border wall he has promised to build.